A retired employee cannot claim ACP benefits that were not due before retirement, particularly after unexplained delay.

The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with Pepsu Road Transport Corporation on 05.12.1977 and retired on attaining superannuation on 31.05.2008.

He was granted the first ACP/proficiency step-up on 01.12.1987 and the second ACP on 14.01.2004.

Relying on the Punjab Government instructions dated 25.09.1998, he later claimed entitlement to the third ACP on completion of 24 years of service, asserting that it became due on 05.12.2001.

The petitioner first raised the claim after approximately eleven years from retirement by serving a legal notice dated 15.01.2019.

His earlier writ petition, CWP No. 32919 of 2019, was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice.

The Corporation thereafter rejected the claim on 20.02.2020, holding that the third ACP became due only on 14.01.2012, after the petitioner had retired, and that he was therefore not entitled to it.

The petitioner challenged that rejection in the present writ petition.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the third ACP/proficiency step-up on completion of 24 years of service, notwithstanding that the first and second ACP benefits had been granted on dates that postponed the third ACP to 14.01.2012?

Whether the petitioner’s claim, raised for the first time approximately eleven years after retirement, was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches?

The Court applied the Punjab Government Circular dated 25.09.1998 governing the Assured Career Progression Scheme, under which placement in a higher scale required the employee’s overall service record to be good, with at least 50% of the reports being good or above and at least two of the last three reports meeting that standard.

The Court also applied the principle that an employee who accepts earlier ACP/proficiency benefits on specified dates, without challenging those dates while in service, cannot subsequently claim a consequential ACP based on an earlier and inconsistent reckoning of service.

Further, the Court applied the doctrine of delay and laches: a stale claim cannot be revived merely because a representation or legal notice is later considered and rejected by the authority.

The Court accepted the respondents’ calculation that, since the petitioner’s second ACP had been granted on 14.01.2004, the third ACP would become due only on 14.01.2012 under the applicable scheme.

The petitioner had already retired on 31.05.2008 and therefore could not claim a third ACP that had not accrued during his service.

The Court further noted that he had never challenged the dates of grant of his first and second ACP benefits, nor claimed the third ACP while in service.

His assertion that the third ACP was due from 05.12.2001 was therefore inconsistent with the accepted dates on which his earlier ACP benefits had been granted.

Independently, the Court held that the claim was highly belated.

The petitioner waited approximately eleven years after retirement before issuing the legal notice and did not provide any explanation for the delay.

The prior writ proceedings, which merely directed the respondents to consider the legal notice, did not adjudicate the merits and did not cure the delay.

Consideration and rejection of a stale claim by the competent authority could not give it a fresh lease of life.

On the accepted computation, it would have become due on 14.01.2012, after his retirement, and the petitioner had also failed to challenge the earlier ACP dates while in service.

The claim was additionally barred by unexplained delay and laches of approximately eleven years after retirement.

The writ petition challenging the order dated 20.02.2020 was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.